Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Between the 1st of June and the 31st of July this year at least 60 white South Africans were murdered by black males. The silence from killers' willing accomplices in the world's media is deafening.

Further details can be read at Censor Bugbear Reports by clicking here

Meanwhile, as August begins, a Parys court has heard gruesome testimony in relation to the killing of elderly farming couple Annetjie and Ernest van Rooyen earlier this year. Whilst 77 year old Ernest apparently died from shock following a stab wound to his chest, his 76 year old wife was stabbed, then tied up, placed alive into a freezer, and left to suffocate.

Naturally those sections of the South African media which reported this crime were sufficiently craven to refer to the killings as having occurred during a "robbery", which suggests the press share some of the hate which this crime clearly involved.

Sunday, 18 November 2012

According tothis reportin the Daily Mail the government report by the Deputy Children's Commissioner Sue Berelowitz (pictured above) into child sex abuse will seek to cover up the threat of Pakistani men targeting white girls. The Mail is not always the most reliable source of information, but I suspect this time they've got it right.

On
the 6th
of November 2012 the real purpose behind mass immigration into
America became starkly clear, when the immigrants did what they were
imported to do and re-elected an otherwise unelectable American president.

As
Ann Coulter points out in here latest article “Demography is Destiny”, had the same nation called America which voted for Ronald
Reagan in 1980 voted gone to the polls this month Romney would have
won with a bigger landslide than Reagan achieved. In fact more white
Americans voted for Romney than they did for Regan.

But
America is no longer the same country it was in 1980, and it is one
which has changed beyond recognition from the nation which voted John
Kennedy into power in 1960.

America
was not changed by nature, nor was it changed by evolution and
certainly not by the will of its people. America was changed by a
series of deliberate political acts, and the intention behind those
acts is now clear for anyone to see, as it is now becoming clear
throughout Europe, where similar deliberate acts of treason were
committed.

Many
millions of Americans will have greeted the US election result with a
deep sense of sadness and dread for what is to come. There are so
many implications to the election result, all of them achingly
depressing. That some sixty three million voters would willingly
re-elect a leader such as Obama, reveals a heartbreaking truth about
what that country and much of the West has become.

And it
didn't become that way by accident.

In
fairness to many of those whites who voted for the incumbent, I doubt
so many would have done so had the media allowed them to know the
truth about the most incompetent, dangerous and vindictive president
ever to have been elected. Most black voters would still have done
so, they voted for his colour, not his record, and Hispanics, easily
disproving the naïve claim that they are natural conservatives,
voted as they always will for anyone but the white man. Others though
may have thought twice had an honest press reported honest facts.

But
they didn't. The media long ago gave up reporting truths without an
agenda, so they were not told the truth.

Even
if the press had told the truth, an act of which they are no longer
capable, is doubtful that it would have made much difference, what we
see in America today is a vote cast by a constituency which the
American left began importing 50 years ago and who will soon make it
impossible for a Republican, let alone a white man, to ever again be
elected president of the same America which white men once made into
the greatest power on Earth.

This,
of course was the plan, and if there were any justice left in
history, the mouldy corpses of Senator Edward Kennedy, Rep. Emanuel
Cellar, Senator Philip Hart and others behind the 1965 Immigrationand Nationality act, which fundamentally changed what it meant to be
an American would be dug up and hanged as they should have been at
the time. Theirs was a deliberate and traitorous act with genocidal
intent, and the deadly fruit of what they planted cast it's votes on
November 6th.

The
Labour party in Britain committed a similar act when they opened the
floodgates to third world immigration believing they were creating an
eternally dependant electorate who would deny the Conservatives the
ability to ever again win a majority. It will be a bitter sweet irony
if future Democrats find themselves losing votes to a la Razza
political party in the same way that the Islamic 'Respect' party now
challenge Labour in a growing number of Britain’s ghetto cities.

However,
it is not all gloomy, in the long run, painful and depressing as this
outcome is it may in fact be the first step in bringing about some
form of salvation, which a Romney victory might well have delayed.

Mitt
Romney is self evidently a very decent, honourable and able man, his
running mate, Paul Ryan is also a highly intelligent, honourable and
able man, but are they, is anybody, capable of repairing the damage
which has been done to America, without the levels of pain, for which
no politician would be forgiven?

Whoever
takes power after this election will have to bear the consequences of
what went before it, and they will be blamed for it. Had Romney won,
the corrupt media would have ensured that he was blamed for all the
pending disasters already set in place. Unlike Obama who has been
permitted to blame his predecessor for all the bad news in his
presidency, Romney would be held fully culpable from day one, whilst
a defeated Obama would become even more a figure of veneration,
portrayed as the saviour denied America by a white racist vote.

This
matters because it is almost certain that within the next four years,
possibly as soon as within the next few months the crumbling
structures currently holding the American economy in place, and with
it what social order remains, will collapse and America will face its
greatest crisis since the civil war, a crisis which has been building
now for 50 years. But which was exacerbated beyond measure during the
last presidential term.

Given
the election result, it will be Obama who presides over the disaster
which is mostly of his own making. When that happens, only the most
brainwashed or ideologically deluded will fail to see the truth, the
damage which has been done and who did it.

Had
Romney won on November 6th
the left would still have a fig leaf behind which to hide.

The
Left will not succeed, as we have seen throughout to the twentieth
century, it is not capable of succeeding, and the Obama administration will not change
America in the manner it seeks to. They are too incompetent and
their beliefs and policies too divorced from reality to succeed.
However, they are more than capable of destroying the union, and I
think they may succeed in that.

Would
that be the disaster it at first appears? Across the world Unions and
cobbled together nations are breaking up and forming closer more
ethnically and culturally homogeneous nation states. Must the United
states remain constant and unchangeable?, must it remain united even
though parts of the union are no longer America in any form and, as
they drown in their diversity, are dragging a great nation under with
them.

Look
at the US electoral map and between a fragmented blue periphery there
is a vast and viable red nation with access to two Oceans* to Canada
in the north and Mexico, beyond a border in the south. A Nation
where, unlike the disparate blue states, and except in certain
pockets, the vast majority of the population share a common culture
and ancestry. That is a situation which will not be allowed to
persist and should be grasped now before it too is gone.

Many
of those now blue states which were once the engines of industry are
now so swamped with the third world they are more liabilities than
the benefits they once were, and America’s great red heart would
thrive better now without them.

Scenic
beauty aside, what more than nostalgia would lead anyone to believe
the bloated drone which California has become brings benefits to
America to equal what it costs? Is even Hollywood a benefit now?
Silicone valley can be rebuilt in Utah or South Carolina and thrive
without the political correctness and quotas currently stifling it.

California,
once the embodiment of the American dream is now the ugly and
dependant symbol of everything which has gone wrong with America in
the last 50 years. If anyone truly believes that it can be saved, or
that America can succeed with such a heavy parasite feeding on its
gut, then they are far more optimistic than I.

California
is not alone, does America really benefit from sharing nationhood
with people quite so stupid as those in Massachusetts who voted for a
creature such as Elizabeth Warren?. That little cluster of blue
states in the North East, iconic for their early colonial status, are
now, in their way, as damaging as California has become. Their
liberal majorities crave nothing so much as to become another
Sweden. Perhaps it is time to let them go their own way and share
the same inevitable fate as that once great European nation.

I am
not advocating the death of America, America has already been damaged
beyond repair. Like a badly cracked vase, it's parts cling together
now more by the power of failing will and a fear of the unknown
rather than the cement of ancestry which once built a nation.

Already
since November 6th,
over 700,000 Americans, so far mainly in the South, have signed petitions calling for their states to secede from the Union. “Just
a spit in the Ocean” when compared to America's three hundred
million population, as one left wing commentator sneered on a recent
episode of the Late Show. But that 700,000 was achieved in just eight
days, and the numbers will inevitably grow as the reality of what
happened and the direction America is taking becomes clearer.

America
has ceased to be a democracy, as, by entirely artificial means, small
sections of the country, with imported and politically manufactured
populations are able to defeat the political wishes of the rest of
America.

The
alternative options are to either to follow the current course into
increased diversity, multiculturalism, decline and the Detroitisation
of America, or to seek to undo the last 50 years worth of
immigration, and send the newly imported Democrat voters home.
Options which are either unthinkable or impossible.

Meanwhile
there is no point in hoping that blacks and Hispanics will stop
voting for their race, because they never will. If white America is
to survive and prosper again then it must start to do the same. That
could well mean that the only option is to separate or die. There is
no Plan B.

Look
again at the map, the answer is there, and there is much which can be
saved. White America can choose survival or it can choose death, I
believe it will choose survival. I pray it will choose survival.

We
in Europe may also have to make a similar choice, sooner than many
think.

________________

* Following the 2012 election Alaska may be the only Republican state with direct access to the North Pacific, but would the white population of Oregon and Washington State choose to remain shackled to California is America split?

I suspect within 20 Years of separation the US map would look like this

Thursday, 15 November 2012

Experience has taught me never to accept anything I read in the papers or see on the TV at face value, and never, under any circumstances to assume that what I am being told is the full and unvarnished truth.

This is even more the case with high profile stories which dominate the news day after day and often week after week.

In much of the West, where truth and honour were once held to be so precious, journalism long ago ceased to be about accurately reporting news and instead has become more about creating a narrative, promoting an agenda or in many cases a means of suppressing or misrepresenting real events.

For that reason, in the current environment, the most appropriate response to anything the news media tells us is to ask three questions:

Why are they telling me this?

Is it true?

What are they seeking to achieve?

In recent weeks with the exception of a few days of US election coverage (of which I will have more to say in a future posting) the news has been dominated, virtually to the expense of all else, by stories of long ago child abuse, most of it occurring thirty, forty or even fifty years ago.

None of this is exactly topical, in the first case the main suspect is now dead, and his accusers middle aged women, all recalling events in the 1960’s and 70’s. The secondary suspects are old and diminished men, their fame a distant recollection even for their most argent fans, their alleged crimes historical events from another time.

Yes, some were one famous, and yes,if true, this may be a news story, but the main news story?, on every broadcast?, night after night, week after week?. At a time when so much is going on, this is all we hear about?

The second story now appears to have been no story at all but an exercise in massive media fantasy wish fulfilment which fell apart in a mess of lies, false identifications and a flawed liberal, narrative always too eager to accuse rich and powerful white men of heinous acts and exploitation.

The second case has certainly gone very wrong for the BBC, whilst other media outlets, such a s channel four now rush to distance themselves from their earlier breathless reporting of the allegations.

Although under British law, proof of guilt is not predicated upon the number of people who make the same allegation, it does appear there may be some truth to what is said about Jimmy Saville, however, it is now clear that the allegations about poor old Lord MacAlpine are entirely false.

However, even if they has all been true, why were the decades old crimes of dead men and thirty year old allegations against long ago retired politicians the most important news story of the day, for weeks on end, now, all these years later in 2012?

The latest of the allegations may present some clues to what is going on. The, also very dead, heavy set politician Cyril Smith has been posthumously accused of spanking bare bottomed schoolboys during the 1960’s (Such allegations are, of course, all but impossible to prove 50 years later, and in any event according to the Beano, being spanked was an occupational hazard for schoolboys back in the 1960s). Like Jimmy Saville, Mr Smith is no longer here to defend himself, and, therefore, as the matter will never come to court, just about anything can be alleged.

The media claims that the rumours about Smith have been around for years, but that is what we are told about all the accused, and, of course, there are rumours about most public figures, so why have they all come out now?

Cyril Smith, of course, was the member of Parliament for, …. guess where? …. he was MP for Rochdale. Rochdale, of course was in the news earlier this year when a gang of Muslim men were convicted of grooming, raping, abusing and prostituting a large number of under aged white girls. Now isn’t that a coincidence?

Are you starting to get the picture?

There is one very obvious reason that old news and lurid, unproven, and probably unprovable allegations of child abuse by old white men have been dominating the news since September, the media are in search of equivalence.

You can be sure that there are a number of big cases about to hit the courts featuring Muslim males and little white girls, so the press are desperate for news stories about the host community doing the same thing, even very old, and very dubious stories.

Can anyone be in doubt that were a group of immigrants to be found committing acts of cannibalism the main news reports the next day would be about Sawney Bean and the legends of Scottish cannibal clans in 1500 AD.

All this nonsense is the smoke screen which will enable the media to say “look, white men do it too!”

Monday, 17 September 2012

In a 2009 episode of
the HBO series “Curb your Enthusiasm” the alleged comedian and
Seinfeld script writer Larry David, appeared in a scene where he
visits the toilet in the home of a Christian family and
“accidentally” urinates on a painting of Christ. As a result Mr David's
piddle then becomes the source of religious veneration when the “dumb
Christians” take it to be a miracle and assume that the picture is
weeping.

Despite the widespread
offence this scene caused to many Christians, a spokesperson for the
at any other time fanatically politically correct cable channel insisted that the
portrayal of a Jewish man pissing on our saviour was merely“playful”.

Also, and readers can
correct me if I am wrong, after all I may well have been bathing a
dog, or painting my toenails at the time and missed it, I have no
recollection of any presidents, prime ministers or Secretaries of
state giving press conferences to call the episode “disgusting” and “reprehensible” or
issuing statements condemning “all those” who offend believers of
“ANY” faith.

Likewise, if the FBI did
apprehend the writers of “Curb your Enthusiasm” or took them in
for questioning, as they has done with the makers of this latest
“anti-Islamic” movie, I must also have missed those reports, -
perhaps a helpful reader can send me a link.

Once again, I may have
been otherwise occupied at the time, but following the depiction of
Christ in the Musical “Jerry Springer the Opera” as an
effeminate, overweight baby in a diaper, I do not seem to recall any
embassies being burnt down, or murdered ambassador's bodies being
dragged through the streets by baying and blood thirsty gangs of Christians.

To be fair “Jerry
Springer the Opera” did result in protests, but these primarily
involved groups of Christians standing outside theatres singing hymns
and handing out leaflets, rather than setting fire to buildings and
calling for executions. Indeed, according to some accounts, more
commotion was caused by audience members objecting to being handed a
leaflet than by the Christian protesters themselves.

Of course according to
the media, the Muslim world is merely reacting in the same way as
followers of any other faith if offended by some cheep internet
flick.

A snarling mob of
Muslims may have murdered U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, his aide Sean
Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty
because of an 18 minute YouTube video, but Christians would have done
exactly the same faced with similar provocation.

That is the first lie,
but only the first of many.

Of course, we have seen
this all before, all it takes is an unfounded rumour of a quran being
dropped in a toilet or a Danish artist, with an old fashioned belief
in free expression, draws cartoon of some old guy with a bomb in his
turban, and the devotees of love and peace turn into a howling
homicidal mob, intent on telling others what values they should live
by.

However, it is the
behaviour of the politicians, the media and the “creative
establishment” which is most contemptible.

Where, for instance,
are all the talking heads who spring up instantly to defend the
rights of anyone to make movies or creates images which are
offensive to Christians or even to pontificate on the artistic merit
of placing a crucifix in a jar of urine or painting the Virgin Mary with Elephant dung? They usually have so much
to say, but when it comes to Islam they all fall silent.

Meanwhile the press
continually imply that there is a moral equivalence between a video
which has been online without causing any upset since July, and
murderous, wide spread rioting and arson which spontaneously broke
out two months later on the exact anniversary of the September 11th
attack on the World Trade centre in New York.

The politicians surpass
themselves in hypocrisy, by tempering any criticism of the riots by
then criticising the video and then lie by saying that they would
condemn equally attempts to offend members of any faith, which we all
know they would not, and have not done so in the past.

However, we know that's a lie but does any of it
have much credibility?

Certainly anyone who
believes that the riots are really a response to a video, which as
anyone who has seen it will attest is a cross between a very bad
“Naked Gun” with added sand, and some form of “Carry on Up the
Jihad”, should not be allowed to drive or handle machinery until
they have sobered up. In fact, the violence was planned well in
advance and is a response to the commemoration of the slaughter of
almost 3,000 people on September 11 2001. We all know that.

However, what about the
establishment and the media? Do you really believe their responses?
Indeed do they believe any of what they are saying?

Did they ever really
believe in the Arab Spring at all?, were they really stupid enough to
interpret the uprisings which started in December 2010 and have since
completely changed the political make up of the region as
demonstrating a craving for a peaceful secular democracy? Were they really that naive?

Whatever the truth,
what we see today, they, our leaders and our media, have helped to
create. What we see is a dangerous, unstable strip of nations across
North Africa and the Southern Mediterranean, all run by people who
hate us, ruling over people screaming for our blood and all of them facing
onto Europe.

Meanwhile, millions
upon millions of them are already here. The official estimate is
that there are 53 million Muslims now living in Europe, however, as
with all official estimates of immigration figures it is almost
certainly far below the true figure. A number of sources put the actual
figure closer to 75 million, (not that much of a stretch given that
based on food consumption alone the main four supermarkets estimated
in 2008 that the UK population alone was actually between ten and
twenty million more than the official figure) If that is true, the
real number of Muslims in Europe is roughly equal to the population
of Germany in 1939. If you add to that the 70 million Turks whom our
leaders, such as Cameron, are desperate to grant access to Europe,
you have numbers close to that of the Axis Powers at the beginning of
World War II, and they already here amongst us and with a billion more
behind them, all facing a West who's people are no longer inclined
to fight for their survival.

Across the Atlantic is
a long time ally who, under the current administration we can no
longer trust to come to our aid especially if we were in conflict
with Islam. “I will stand
with themshould the political winds shift in an
ugly direction.” said Barack Obama or whoever wrote “The Audacity
of Hope” for him, in reference to Muslims at a time of international conflict. If he wins in November, we may find how much he
meant those words within the next four years.

And it could well be
that soon, things have changed so rapidly and so decisively in such a
short space of time.

Is this coincidence or
was this intended? Was ir due to incompetence, ideological blindness or
malevolent design?.

Do we yet realise how
much danger we are in? Or are we like the sheep grazing peacefully
and placidly in a field we though would never change, so contented
and so comfortable that we did not notice the wolves slinking quietly
towards us from the woods, until they had us surrounded on all sides
and there was no escape.

And
thanks for the tweets and retweets and letters to the editors and calls
to talk radio and all the other things that are pushing this book into
some places it needs to be.

I'm very grateful.

Two:
I’ll also be posting links to the latest episodes of racial violence,
mayhem and denial at WND.com. They are creating one of their “Lists” for
this, some of which get 3 million hits a year. I am told it will appear
Tuesday. That could be very interesting.

Three: The success of
White Girl Bleed a Lot is also generating interest in another book I
wrote at about the same time: Redwood to Deadwood: A 53-year old dude
hitchhikes around America. Again.

It made a few lists as one of the best adventure travel books of the year. And I had a lot of fun doing it.

PBS in Philadelphia just did a big story on it. (Redwood to Deadwood on PBS) With another one from PBS scheduled for sometime in the next month.

If you check it out, let me know what you think. You can find it on Amazon or a link to it at White Girl Bleed a Lot.

Monday, 13 August 2012

As must be obvious to all readers, this site is no longer benefiting from regular updates. I’m afraid his is due to changes in my personal life. The recent addition to my family of a treasured, but very demanding young person, together with the fact that, like most people in the current environment, I have no option other than to hold down an increasingly challenging full time job mean that I no longer have the free time I once had to devote to blogging.

I also have a partner who has first call on what free time I have, that is, when I am not too exhausted to think!

I am reluctant to close down the blog altogether, as I feel I still have something to contribute, and that the archive of my previous articles continues to have some value.

However, I regret that for the time being postings to this site will become occasional rather than regular.

I hope that readers will continue to visit from time to time to check for updates.

I will, of course, continue where possible to report on the ongoing attacks on the South African farming community.

Apart from the opening and, almost as ghastly, closing ceremonies, which, unlike the contests themselves, were under the complete control of the media and a tiny left wing elite and were therefore more of the same mind numbing propaganda which now passes for entertainment in this country, it would be difficult to argue that the 2012 Olympic games was not a tremendous success for Britain. At least it was a success in terms of the performance of our athletes and the behaviour of the British public.

One can not compare the 1908 games when we last won as many medals, but only 28 nations participated, with the games which have just taken place, hence it is fair to state that Britain has just had it’s most successful Olympics of all times.

However, the success has not been in the form which the establishment would have us believe. According to the opening and closing raves, the media narrative and most politically correct politicians, the Olympics was a triumph for multiculturalism. However, a true analysis of what actually happened, and, of course, of the medals table itself, tells a very different story, and one which must have been quite infuriating for those attempting to promote the official line.

Of our tally of 29 gold medals four were shared between three black athletes and one further gold went to Jessica Ennis, girl of mixed race origins. By far the vast majority of “Team GB” medal winners, at gold and all other levels, were, as a BBC executive would no doubt describe them “hideously white”

As was to be expected, despite making up less than 14% of the winners, black athletes received at least 40% of the TV coverage and were represented in a significantly higher percentage in the opening and closing graphics accompanying any sports show during the games. However, irrespective of how the media tried to play it, the split between the elitist fairy tale and reality has seldom been so marked.

Indeed, the multicultural fantasy did not only fail in terms the medal count, the myth that “we are all the same” was exposed as the lie it is in the events which took place.

Black athletes featured strongly, albeit not exclusively in the boxing ring and on the track where they held preeminent positions in most activities involving running, but were completely non existent from virtually all other sports. Where were the black swimmers, divers, cyclists, rowers, sailors, tennis players, riders and shooters? In the British team there were none.

It one were to remove the runners, boxers and the little Tiquando chap who was selected instead of the world champion on account of his colour, out of the equation then the medal winners would resemble slightly younger versions of the overwhelmingly white space scientists who recently landed the explorer Curiosity on Mars, except that there were a few Orientals among the scientists.

We are different, we excel in different things, we fail in different things, we are not the same, and the Olympic games showed it. It also became clear that we think differently and we want different things
It was not just amongst the athletes where the difference was on display, as was clear in the make up of the crowds at particular events and confirmed when spectators were interviewed white within the crowd were there to cheer on everyone, or so they said, whereas blacks made no bones of the fact they were there to cheer on black athletes. (few ‘British Asians’ seemed to have turned up, at least not to watch the British team) Behind the microphones, white commentators spoke of diversity and inclusion, while black commentators stressed the achievements of black athletes. Channel Four sports reporter Keme Nzerum, even went so far as to suggest that Britain had done so well largely because other sportsmen and women had “been inspired by the success of Mohammed (Mo) Farah and Jessica Ennis”, despite the fact that a significant number of medals had been won before either of then entered the fray.

It would be churlish not to acknowledge the likable “Mo” Farah’s achievement in winning two gold medals, he did himself and his native Somalia, where I understand his progress was being avidly followed, proud. However, it cannot be denied, that people of his ethnic back ground and place of origin are genetically advantaged in terms of running abilities. For that very reason alone, to include him in the British team and view his success as a “British triumph” is in itself a form of cheating. You might as well put a greyhound in a Labrador race, and call it a fast Labrador. He’s not British, he’s Somali and both his victory and medal should have been awarded to Somalia.

Not everyone fell for the attempts to sell “Mo” as national hero, it must have really galled the assembled ranks of opinion formers to discover that considerably more people tuned in to watch the wonderful Tim Daley’s life reaffirming delight at winning a diving bronze than watched Mo Farah win either of his gold medals.

It was Tom, the incredible triathlon winning Brownlee brothers, and, of course Bradley (Wiggo) Wiggins, despite his Australian, father who really made most of the nations heart swell with the patriotic pride, so disdained by the Chairman of the BBC.

Contrary to the spin which the establishment are, and will continue to put on the 2012 London Olympics, the truth is that it was not a triumph for the multicultural dream, but an event which exposed racial differences in very stark relief.

Thursday, 2 August 2012

It was just two sentences long and consigned to what is effectively the “It’s an odd word” section on page 18 of this morning’s London metro. Out of interest I measured the article and it was 1.2 inches by 2.5 inches, and that included the headline ‘Boy 12 “is boiled to death”

That was how one London paper saw fit to report the trial of the three men charged with the torture, rape and murder of the Viana family in October last year.

One can only imagine how many pages the western media would dedicate to the trial of three white South Africans accused of a similar crime. However, in this case in common with 99.9% of all such interracial murders. the victims were white and the accused black. This does not suit the narrative which the old media are determined to follow, and is therefore such cases are embarrassments, which they seek to under play or deliberately fail to report.

The three accused Sipho Mbele, David Motaung and Patrick Petrus Radebe, who had worked for the family, smiled and sniggered as the crimes, to which they have confessed were detailed.

The court heard the gang lay in wait for Tony Viana 53, to arrive home, then they attacked him with golf clubs and a panga / machete before tying him up.

Shortly afterwards Mrs Geraldine Viana and the couple’s 12 year old son Amaro returned and were also attacked by the gang. Amaro was also tied up and together with his father was forced to watch while all three men rapedd his mother in turn, restraining her by variously standing on her head or forcing a pillow over her face.

After raping Mrs Viana the gang murdered her and her husband. Such rapes and murders are now commonplace in South Africa, however, what the killers did next was what made this crime particularly heinous.

Amaro Viana had watched as his mother was raped, he has witnessed his parents being slaughtered, he knew the men who did it and could identify them, they decided he had to die.

However, they didn't just kill him, they didn't even show him the mercy of shooting him, execution style through the back of the head, as the killers of three year old WillemienPotgieter did to her after killing her family. Instead the things which took twelve year old Amaro's life took him to the bathroom, filled the bath with scalding hot water and held him under water until he stopped struggling.

As a parting act, the killers disembowled the family dog.

This was no “bungled burglary”, this was no “robbery gone wrong, this was another hate crime, but it was only a white boy they boiled to death, so hate crimes charges were never brought.

Related:Mike smith gives his view on this case on his blog, which can be read by clicking here

Click here to hear Dr. Gregory Stanton, President of Genocide Watch, speaks at a news conference held at the Transvaal Agricultural Union in Pretoria, regarding the current situation in South Africa, on 26 July 2012

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

The Jamie Glazov Show that will air on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 8-9 pm Pacific (11-12 pm EST) on Blog Talk Radio.

This
weeks guest is: Colin Flaherty, award-winning writer of White Girl Bleed a Lot whose work has
appeared in more than 1000 new sites around the world, including the
New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and others.

He is
a former ghost writer for a Chairman of the US Commission on Civil
Rights and author of White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial
Violence and How the Media Ignore It.

Some while ago, when hearing that Shallow Grave director Danny Boyle had been commissioned to produce the opening ceremony to the London Olympics, I wrote an article in which I imagined what sort of spectacle Boyle might produce. The result was widely mocked on the troll sites and also slightly less vindictively on Rational Wiki.

However, in an outcome that was beyond satire the result was worse than even I had imagined. Instead of effigies of Obama and Mandela we were presented with the real life Doreen Lawrence, taking time off from attending court cases which her glowering presence might just influence, and Shami Chakrabarti. Meanwhile Danny Boyle set before us a vision of England which resembled a cross between a multiracial Gormenghast and rap night at the Spearmint Rhino.

All it lacked were the vuvuzlas, or did I miss those?

The only permissible reaction was to rave about how wonderful it was, while any criticism was treated in rather the same way as the Pyongyang authorities might respond to a streaker at the Dear Leader's funeral.

The old media and the mob of great and good have viciously attacked Conservative MPAidan Burley for describing the ceremony as “Leftie, multi cultural crap” however, I fail to see how he could be faulted on that description. The ceremony portrayed a version of British history only recognisable from the prejudiced and distorted perspective of a left wing bigot. It was aggressively multicultural to the degree of psychosis, and Mr. Burley’s critical assessment that it was crap is one I find hard to argue with.

The show was an example of ideological propaganda of which North Korea or the old Soviet Union would have been proud, and Mr. Burley was entirely correct in pointing it out for what it was.

However, we live in an age where telling the truth is a punishable offence, and I regret that Adrian Burley’s attempts at explaining himself or even apologising will not save him from a vengeful old media and a left desperate to protect its precious but deformed ideology.

One person who long ago gave up apologising or attempting to explain himself is the much maligned historian David Irving, and I invite you to enjoy his intelligent description of Friday night’s macabre cabaret

After having speculated that the queen might come to view the ceremony as one of the low point of her reign, Irving goes on to say:

IN her sixty years' rule she has seen the
feckless politicians turn her kingdom from a
mono-ethnic wellspring of world civilisation
into a drug-crazed, gun-toting, knife-wielding
"multi-cultural" cesspit. The British Empire
imploded. The BBC television cameras hover
lovingly on every Black immigrant face that has
been shoe-horned, heedless of chronology, into
the scenes that Boyle has devised -- including
the top-hatted 19th Century capitalist
factory-owners, and even the Suffragettes. Black
children dance around 19th Century English
Maypoles. Boxer, George Orwell's heroic
carthorse in Animal Farm, would be
scratching his forelock: didn't remember them,
somehow. On the far side of the arena,
meanwhile, the Empire Windrush berths to
orchestrated cheers, bringing its first toxic
cargo of Caribbean doom.

[What a come-down for the good
ole Windrush. Launched in Hamburg in
1930 as the Monte Rosa, she became one
of Hitler's Kraft durch Freude fleet of
cruise-liners for German workers, served as a
fleet auxiliary to the Tirpitz battle
group in the 1940s, then heroically evacuated
refugees from East Prussia before the Soviet
onslaught in 1945.]

After the first hour, the constant and
inappropriate interpolation of Black faces in
this London Olympics ceremony becomes offensive,
and probably as much so to them as to us, the
Whites. There is brief relief when the
outside-broadcast cameras go on to other
celebrations in Northern Ireland, Wales, and
Scotland, where there is not a single Black face
for the BBC cameras to linger joyously upon.

No doubt they will be digitally inserted
later, just as Black faces, looking remarkably
like Robertson's Marmelade golliwogs, were
digitally superimposed on some of Harry Potter's
cheering fellow-pupils in the final scene of the
first Potter movie.

Anger and shame assailed me when I was reading Losing Small Wars: anger
with a corrupt Prime Minister (Blair) for the lies used to justify the
deployment of British forces to Iraq and Afghanistan and the
professional collusion of senior officers and the security services in
the dissemination of the lies; and shame for the untold misery inflicted
on Iraqi and Afghan civilians, the deaths and maiming of our soldiers
and the lies used to comfort their families and to mislead the public.
As if this was not bad enough, we are confronted at every turn in these
badly judged deployments with far too many examples of incompetent
political and military leadership in theatre. With all these failings
and the scale of the invasion and occupation in Iraq, and the NATO
mission in Afghanistan, Ledwidge’s title hardly does justice to what is
revealed. In any case these are hardly ‘small wars’: the lying alone was
and remains even now on a mass industrial scale.

If, having read
Losing Small Wars, I had to identify the single most important failing
about the disastrous British interventions in Iraq and, currently
Afghanistan, it would be the failure on the part of the British
government and its military advisers to spell out quite clearly why the
British armed forces were ever deployed to these two parts of the Middle
East. Factor out the obvious lies disseminated by Blair and his
political-military clique that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) and that these weapons posed a threat to Britain and
there was no justified reason for Britain’s ever having had anything to
do with the US-led invasion of Iraq. Bush’s ravings that Saddam Hussein
was another Hitler reflect the appalling ignorance of American
presidents about the world. Such claims were intended to provide some
weak justification for Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. Nevertheless
they are pitiful claims. By the standards of Arab leaders Saddam
Hussein was averagely repressive. Oil is a factor on the Middle East but
did it require that the US and others invade Iraq and inflict such
dreadful misery and suffering? If we went there to impose democracy and
other Western abstractions then that too has been a catastrophic failure
and one that was bound to be in a part of the world where Islam rules.
Why do Americans and their too willing British allies not realise that
the liberal democracies that evolved in a small part of northern Europe
among small groups of racially homogenous peoples cannot be just imposed
on what are Third World tribal societies? Here we see a deadly serious
failure of imagination, caused by what Pat Buchanan has correctly
identified as democratic fundamentalism and which has been made to
appear fallaciously plausible by the malevolent ideology of
multiculturalism and neo-conservatism.

As for the British Army’s
being in Afghanistan, no British politician has yet provided a
convincing argument for the deployment. Brown’s claims that British
troops in Afghanistan made the UK safer were obvious lies and so
obviously clumsy one wonders why he thought he could get away with
peddling such nonsense. Equally mendacious are the claims that UK forces
are helping the Afghan population to build a better future. Do the
Taliban – they are part of the Afghan population – want our help? How do
we help people by laying their country waste and imposing utterly alien
institutions such as elections and education and undermining the
foundations of a tribal society? Other possible reasons for our being
there may be related to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and fears about
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (and oil, of course). But even these are not
that convincing when trying to find an explanation for why Britain has
expended so much blood and treasure. Remove any geo-political
considerations and one is left with the interests and rivalries of the
three services. Ledwidge refers to remarks made by General Dannatt to a
British diplomat that if the British army, with an exit date from Iraq
established, did not redeploy its battle groups to Afghanistan, they
would be removed in any Strategic Defence Review. Ledwidge also suggests
that the British army wanted to go to Helmand to show what it could do
and attempt to compensate for its less than glorious performance in
southern Iraq. Another factor prompting the deployment was, as always, a
desire on the part of senior British politicians and officers to
ingratiate themselves with the Americans, to try to rebuild their
damaged stock.

Monday, 9 July 2012

Politics is that pie slice of human behaviour which can be looked at as behaviour under constraint.

Economics
is another pie slice - human behaviour which can be reduced to digital
markers. It cannot be regarded as independent of the broad behaviour of
humans, and must conform to the behavioural rules of human activity.
Because economics can be reduced to mathematics is has another role. It
can be used as an instrument to understand complex societal behaviour
overall.

The
Euro was created in an attempt to “unify” the financial patterns of the
diverse groups of Europe. That illustrated the inherent folly of the
politicians in the European Union. When a single monetary unit was
imposed across a wide spectrum of societies the naive fumbling the
political engineers assumed that human behaviour could be permanently
changed by diktat.

But they failed to understand that economics
was only a small outward feature of overall human behaviour. Finances
cannot be manipulated independently of that. The political fatal
assumption was that the underlying behavioural variances of different
groups and nations could be forced into a universalized “economic”
behaviour by imposing a “universal” currency.

From the outset it
was not conceptually possible that a Thessalonian goatherd could be
expected to behave - socially, culturally and economically - in the
fashion of a banker in Bonn. By even attempting to force this, the
European Union demonstrated its political gaucherie.

It is true
that human humans can be changed by external forces, but only
temporally, and only by suppression. Human behaviour is far too
intricate and complex to be remodeled by muscle.

It is no
coincidence that when the controlling politicians of Soviet Union and
the Nazis wished to show their power they used parade-ground disciplined
demonstrations of military manoeuvres to express their authority. After
the parade the participants, of course, reverted to their previous
behaviour.

A universal currency should represent a consistent
value to all its users. It should display value parity. But it is an
economic truism that the value of a currency should reflect the
productivity of the user group, (when compared with a “marker”
currency). Said another way any currency is expected to
possess”productivity parity”

Currency values are therefore
secondary to (and are determined by) the behaviour of the population
which issues that currency. It cannot be the other way around: A
currency cannot determine the behaviour of a population.

But the
nations which were persuaded to use the Euro were highly varied. They
had different resource mixes, differing population ages and various
levels of socialism. The per capita savings and concepts of wealth
(which included the willingness to rely on promissory notes, i.e.
borrowing on the premise that it expected those borrowings to be
honoured) differed. Most important, productivity differed.

In the
complex equation which is Europe, inequality of productivity exists.
Therefore the value of the euro (expressed in terms of the
interchangeable bonds) cannot reflect equal value parity. Any currency
is ultimately committed to reflect the productivity of that individual
national culture. Equality of productivity has never (indeed will never)
happen in the European Monetary Area because of the very varied
societal behavioural patterns of the nations –which are now in stressed
bondage.

As a result Greeks pay a higher interest rate to lure
purchases. Greek bonds, although denominated in Euro therefore cost
less. The Germans, on the other hand, do not need to lure investors;
instead investors clamour for their bonds because they believed that
their money would be safer with the Germans then it would be with the
Greeks.

Since a Greek Euro denominated bond now has less value than German Euro bond, a Greek Euro is now worth less than a German Euro.

Bizarre?
Yes, but only because of the bizarre underlying fallacy that the
behaviour patterns of different groups could be economically forced into
synchrony.

Devaluing money from an unproductive country (i.e.
causing its bonds to devalue) moves money from that country (making it
more poor) to another (making it more rich).

Now that the Euro
has been seen not to hold consistent value parity it can only be doomed
to a relentless downward spiral of inconsistent value.

Since it
will not be possible to force lasting conformity on the variety of
societal groups that use the Euro, the euro must fail.

Any attempt to separate economic behaviour from the broader field of universal human behaviour is folly.

Changes
in monetary value of nations put on show the underlying differences in
cultural and behaviour as expressed by their diverging "economics".

Since
politics and economics overlap they can offer parallel messages. The
EU’s predictable failure as a monetary system now presages an equally
predictable failure of its political union.

Thus where differing
peoples are ordered, by political directives, to behave in “universal”
fashion the same catastrophic cascades can be expected to occur
politically.

The most important of these political directives, by
the European Union, is that varied populations have been ordered to
tolerate alien cultural distinctions and “ignore” obvious differences
whether these are racial, linguistic, cultural or behavioural. People
are forced - by law - to transgress the natural interface between
different communities, obliging them to suppress their instinctive,
protective reactions.

This social perturbation, if forced union
continues, will be the same as shown in the economic model - widening
divergences accelerating into an avalanche of chaos. The endpoint will
be conflict and societal destruction.

This predicts that ultimately the entire European Union is politically doomed.

End
note: the EMA seems never to have learned that while the Germanys were
divided (and socio-economically different) the “official” exchange rate
was one Ostmark to one Westmark. Reality forced the (empirical and
realistic) black-market rate to six inferior Ostmark to one Westmark,
Helmut Kohl lured voters in East Germany by promising – misleading to
engineer his re-election - that reunification would permit a one-to-one
exchange of Marks. This another political legerdemain succeeded only to
have repercussions which still reverberate: West Germans continue to pay
for that political chicanery.

It would be inappropriate to comment on the trial of former England football captain, John Terry, charged with using racially offensive language on the football pitch, whilst the case is still going on. However, I found it interesting, and a little troubling, to note, that Mrs Doreen Laurence mother of Stephen Lawrence, the martyred saint of the anti-racist cause, felt it appropriate to attend the trial as an observer in the gallery.

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

In his 2008 book Et Delt Folk (“A Nation Divided”), The
Danish historian and writer Morten Uhrskov Jensen carefully went through
publicly available sources. He demonstrated that the opening up of his
country for mass immigration was arranged by just part of the
population, sometimes in the face of considerable popular opposition.

Roughly speaking, those representing the political and media
establishment and the upper classes were in favor of open borders,
whereas those from the lower classes were often opposed. This divide is
viewed by those from the upper segments of society as caused mainly by
racism, prejudice, ignorance and xenophobia.

Since the educated classes enjoyed a virtual hegemony over public
debate, they were able to define all opposition as hate and intolerance,
exemplified by people such as Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s
Party. The well-to-do themselves
rarely lived in areas with many immigrants and could afford to move, at
least for a while, if that was needed. They focused on the abstract and
allegedly humanitarian aspects of mass migration.

Immigrants are simply referred to as “new countrymen,” who as if by
magic always seem to enrich the natives with their presence. In Denmark,
multiculturalists have successfully managed to establish the neologism nydansker or “new Danes,” a vibrant new breed of people currently displacing the tired and boring “old Danes.”

For poorer people, immigration was a concrete issue, as immigrants
moved into their neighborhoods and went to school with their children.
To put it bluntly, for those with money, globalization initially meant
that they could travel on holidays to exotic lands and treat the world
as their playground. For those who were less well off, it meant that the
entire world suddenly moved into their street and took over their
children’s local playground.

When the Titanic during her maiden voyage across the
Atlantic Ocean struck an iceberg just before midnight on 14 April 1912,
the first people who could see the water pouring in were the third-class
passengers who happened to be situated closest to the waterline.
Meanwhile, the richest passengers at the top were drinking fine cognac
long after the ship had started sinking. They didn’t realize what was
going on for quite some time, because they were further removed from the
physical problem. The poor passengers still unfortunately suffered the
highest fatality rates, because the wealthy benefitted from having
privileged access to the lifeboats.

We see the same phenomenon on display today, on a much larger scale.
Having Islamophobia in Europe today is just as rational as having
icebergophobia on board the Titanic in 1912.

Uhrskov Jensen in 2012 published another book, Indvandringens Pris
(“The Price of Immigration”) about how much money non-European mass
immigration costs his native Denmark. His conclusion is that this cost
is great in terms of welfare payments and rising crime combined with
declining efficiency and technological innovation.

He shows through carefully researched statistics that only certain
Asian immigrants are able to keep up with northern Europeans in the
educational system. A few skilled immigrants from India or elsewhere can
compete, but mainly those from East Asia: Japanese, Koreans, Chinese,
and to some extent Vietnamese. All other non-Western immigrants show
lower levels of skill and competence than Europeans, many of them a lot
lower.

It should be mentioned here that these numbers correlate quite well
with average IQ, where a few other Asians can compete with Europeans,
but primarily East Asians. Other ethnic groups cannot do so. Although it
has become taboo to say this in the modern Western world, it is
well-documented fact that IQ correlates well with economic level, for
individuals as well as for nations. The scholar Charles Murray has
written much about this.

Former professor Helmuth Nyborg
at Aarhus University in Denmark has conducted controversial research on
the subject of the genetic inheritance of intelligence. His conclusion
is that today’s mass immigration of non-Europeans will lead to an
overall marked decline in the average intelligence of the population,
and by extension a significant decline in social and economic
competence, scientific progress, as well as technological innovation.

For decades Westerners have been told that immigration from less
developed Third World countries is “good for the economy” and will “pay
for future pensions.” Morten Uhrskov Jensen proves conclusively that
this claim is fundamentally wrong, not just regarding Denmark or
Scandinavia but for other Western countries, too.

Certain private companies may enjoy short-term benefits by having
access to cheap labor and borderless export markets. Socialist parties
can cynically import a reliable voter base of backward peoples who
overwhelmingly vote for left-wing parties so they can receive generous
welfare payments from the high tax payments extracted from the majority
population, essentially forcing the white natives to fund their own
colonization by foreign peoples.

For the country as a whole, however, non-European mass immigration
will in the long run turn out to be an unmitigated social and economic
disaster. The direct and indirect costs of today’s immigration policies
through rising crime, increased corruption and higher welfare costs plus
declining competitiveness, innovation and genetic intelligence add
escalating costs to countries already in trouble due to rising deficits
and mushrooming debt.

A Danish think tank has estimated that the net cost of immigration is
as much as 50 billion kroner every year, and those were cautious
estimates. A study from Denmark found that every second immigrant from
the Third World – especially from Muslim countries – lacked the
qualifications for even the most menial jobs on the labor market.

An ever-growing group of non-Western immigrants in Norway is dependent on welfare.
This was the conclusion of a study by Tyra Ekhaugen of the Frisch
Centre for Economic Research. Ekhaugen’s research contradicted the
common assertion that the labor market depends increasingly on
immigrants. The study indicated the reverse.

Yet Erling Lae, a politician for the Conservative Party
and then the head of the Oslo city government, warned that the city
desperately needs more immigrants and that there would be “complete
chaos” without them. In 2005, Trygve G. Nordby, who has worked for the
Socialist Left Party, as the director of the Norwegian Directorate of
Immigration (UDI), claimed that the country needed more unskilled immigrants and should actively seek them out. It later emerged that UDI under Nordby’s
rule had virtually run its own private immigration policy in violation
of national law in order to give Iraqi immigrants the right to settle in
Norway.

Journalist Halvor Tjønn from newspaper Aftenposten,
one of the few genuinely critical journalists in Norway who later
published a fairly realistic biography of Muhammed, in 2006 cited a
report from NHO, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise. NHO warned
that the current immigration policies constitute a serious threat to the
country’s economy. Norway is one of the world’s largest exporters of
oil and natural gas due to its offshore resources in the North Sea and
elsewhere. Yet according to NHO, there is a risk that much of the profit
Norway earns from selling oil could be spent on paying welfare for its
rapidly growing immigrant population.

These warnings were left unheeded by political leaders, yet the problem hasn’t gone away. In 2012, the business daily Dagens Næringsliv
reported that researcher Erling Holmøy from Statistics Norway together
with senior advisor Birger Strøm studied how immigration affects
government budgets. They concluded that in the long run it would prove
to be very costly, stating that mass immigration bears certain
similarities to a pyramid scheme.

Author Morten Uhrskov Jensen states
that the basic trends are identical in Sweden, France, Germany and the
USA. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this is, in his
view, to stop all non-Western mass immigration. Yet the Western
political elites continue to promote such mass immigration, in spite of
mounting evidence that this is greatly harmful to their own countries.
This dangerous stubbornness could be due to ideological blindness, or
may be because the political elites see their positions, prestige and
personal privileges tied to maintaining the status quo.

In the end, the historian Uhrskov Jensen fears that only a massive traumatic
event or a major shock to the system can change the direction the
Western world is currently headed and reestablish reasonable and
sensible immigration policies that are in line with the long-term
interests of the European majority population.

‘No Part of this book may be reproduced in any form … The only exception is by a reviewer, who may quote excerpts in a review’. So runs the first page of ‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’, the explosive book by the award-winning American Journalist, Colin Flaherty.

As this is a Review, here is an Extract:

‘Race riots are back.

‘Along with widespread racial crime and violence.

‘In
hundreds of episodes in more than 50 cities since 2010, groups of black
people are roaming the streets of America – assaulting, intimidating,
stalking, threatening, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, even
raping and killing.’

Flaherty makes this point by detailing many of these episodes. One
of his chief complaints is that they aren’t normally reported by the
media, not in the national media or even in the local media in the
cities or areas where they occur. Or if they are, the story is that
there was nothing much to worry about because

‘Flash mobs, young people, gangs, people with no direction or good parents, they did it’

But as for race? Nobody knew nuttin about nuttin’ see?’

Or if they did, it was ‘racist’ to mention it.

For example, a sopping wet journalist apologist for black violence, one Emily Guendelsberger
was seriously hurt when a black crowd of thousands roamed Philadelphia
(where the previous two years had seen dozens of episodes of racial mob
violence, all with same characteristics).

In the Guendelsberger incident they had descended on ‘an urban
enclave of upscale bars and restaurants and shops with mayhem on their
minds. Running through the streets, assaulting people in restaurants,
stealing their phones and purses, pulling people off bicycles, and
always violence, lots of violence.’

But it wasn’t racist violence when they attacked Guendelberger
because her brown boyfriend was also assaulted, although’ not as badly
as she was. This ‘proved’ her point that race had nothing to do with it. Anyone who thought differently was ‘racist’ and ‘creepy,’ she said.

A Racist Fact

Several on-line commentators wondered why she couldn’t acknowledge
the racial component of the mob. Replied one: ‘Unless you’re pointing
that out to show how whites have oppressed blacks, acknowledging that
fact is racist.’

They weren’t riots – some other description is used – and/or they were ‘traditional’.

Thus in Peoria, Illinois, once a byword for middle America (hence the famous phrase, ‘will it play in Peoria?) when on the 4th of July a black mob of thousands in a housing ‘project’
(ie publically owned housing estate) blocked a fire truck’s access to a
fire and threw exploding, industrial –type fireworks and bottles at
police and firemen; when 60-70 African-American youths marched down one
of the side streets to the 4-lane main drag, yelling threats to white
residents, such as ‘we need to kill all the white people around here’;
when 20 black women threw rocks at houses and attacked a man, according
to the information officer, these were not race riots because as
Flaherty puts it, ‘the people doing the rioting did not say it was. Or something like that.’

The police had to fire nearly 200 pepper balls in order to gain
control of the crowd and ‘every officer said pretty much the same thing –
that it was chaotic and like a riot….every officer received bruises and
burn marks.’ But the Police Information Officer said that ‘Revellers
there have traditionally held private fireworks displays on the fourth
and previously made targets of the police and passers by’.

A Beef about this Book

Oh. ‘Revellers’ attacking the police and passers by is traditional. So that’s all right then. As Flaherty says, ‘I say rioters. You say revellers.’ ‘But’, Flaherty goes on, ‘the video tells another story’. And here we have a beef about this book.

In the absence of news reports, or truthful ones, Flaherty backs up
his undeniable case that there are widespread black-instigated race
riots in the USA by referring to videos on You Tube and
elsewhere on the internet which tell the real story. (How the power of
the internet is undermining the lies and distortions of the traditional
MSM!!!!). But until you buy the book you are unlikely to find this out,
which is a great shame. As is stated in the opening pages, ‘Because links to videos and pictures are such an important part of this book, this book is best viewed on E-reader.’

Never mind though. Such is such is the power of the rata-tat-tat of
so many incidents of shocking proportions detailed all over the USA,
representing untold numbers of others, that one puts up with the
inconvenience of finding the videos in question on line. But be warned.

Attacking the Weak

Flaherty identifies a disturbing characteristic of these riots. They
focus on the weak. Lone White Men, Women, Gays and others. The
upscale Philadelphia area mentioned above is a favourite of Gays. While
the White weak are especially at risk, others also suffer. South
Philadelphia High School is 70% black and 18 % Asian (In USA terms this
means mostly orientals like Chinese, Vietnamese etc)

A Department of Justice report found that a
contingent of largely black school officials dismissed ignored and even
encouraged attacks on Asian students by Black students.

For years, Black students systematically beat and harassed Asian
students on a daily basis. In December 2009, 30 Asians were attacked
sending 13 of them for emergency treatment. School officials told local
news outlets that the attacks were in no way racial. The (mostly
black) school authorities handed pamphlets to the Asians instructing them how to avoid antagonising their black schoolmates with racist behaviour - !!!

A Descriptive, not an Explanatory Book

Flaherty does not intend this book to be explanatory. He merely
presents a picture of what is happening. But explanations for the
explosion in race riots are implicit. In particular there is the power
of modern communications. Not only does the Internet carry reports and
videos of the race riots which the liberals who run the newspapers and
TV and Radio Channels choose to ignore, downplay, minimise or
misrepresent, but the riots including the black flash mobs which are
terrorising and robbing the citizenry, stores and restaurants of the USA
are organised using their new social networking tools such as Twitter and Facebook.

Modern communications which have enabled tendencies to crystallise in
mob form are probably at least part of the explanation as to why these
phenomena have surfaced in recent years in such spectacular fashion.
The same thing happened with the Riots in Britain recently.

Moral Collapse and the Victim Culture

Other implied causes include the malign and manifold influences of
the post-1960’s moral collapse (eg illegitimacy among blacks is now
70%.) Then there is the growth of the victim culture which has been
encouraged by guilt–ridden liberal /left whites and which has fostered a
sense of grievance and entitlement. This is despite the fact that blacks in America have been favoured over whites for nearly half a century with ‘quotas,
set–asides, lower standards for blacks, training reserved for blacks,
efforts to recruit blacks not matched by efforts to recruit whites,
race-norming of tests, banding and recentering.’ (Michael Levin, ‘Why Race Matters’, 2005, P232).

Linked with the victim culture is the tolerance of black wrong-doing
which Flaherty decribes. It is born of the belief that it is the
product of social ie white ‘oppression’. Obviously, if you
have a weak personal moral compass in a secular environment where right
and wrong are relative, are told that you are oppressed and that your
bad behaviour is the fault of others, you will find no great internal
impediment to indulging in that same bad behaviour. As for external
constraints; these are non-existent for all practical purposes. White
leftist /liberals will excuse your behaviour and hysteria about ‘racist’
thinking, will help you to get away with it. Somehow leftists /
liberals excuse it on racial grounds whilst at the same time managing
to deny that it has anything to do with race.

Poverty is to blame? Not Really

A further implicit reason, often quoted by leftists, is ‘poverty’.
But poverty is not of itself a cause of criminal behaviour. Nor is the
gap between rich and poor. Crime was virtually non-existent by modern
standards in England and Wales in the early 20th century although there
was widespread poverty and the gap between rich and poor was infinitely
higher than it is today. (In 1921 there were 103,000 recorded crimes,
pop. 37,886,689; In 2001 there were 5,200,000 recorded crimes, pop.
53,137,000. Quoted by Peter Hichens, 2003 p 14: A Brief History of Crime).

If in general Blacks, who have been the beneficiaries of the racial discrimination (‘affirmative action’) in their favour for generations as noted above have not heaved themselves out of ‘poverty’,
this is because use with a mean IQ of 85 (Whites 100) and other
characteristics they are not capable of anything else and have only
themselves to blame.

It’s Easier to Blame Whitey than to confront the Truth

This though is an uncomfortable fact that blacks would for
understandable reasons rather not confront, preferring to blame Whitey.
Whitey of course, or its cringing, dominant left-liberal political
class, is only too happy to agree with this fiction. (Who are Blacks
going to blame when Whites are in a minority in the USA? The Jews?).

Other ethnic minorities though, such as the Jews (also heavily
discriminated against historically) and the East Asians whom Blacks are
inclined to torment and who started off in the USA in the 19th Century
as indentured labourers with a social standing not much above slaves, do
very well socio-economically. In any case, the poverty of Blacks is
entirely relative, consisting of a standard of living which would be
thought of as great wealth by most of the world’s population.

The Black Poor will always be with us and so will Black Resentment and Violence - if Liberals do not see Reason

Jesus said ‘the poor are always with us’.
And because on average they lack the intellectual wherewithal and other
personal characteristics necessary to succeed in a modern economy,
blacks in general will always be poor, relatively speaking. Or, if you
like, the poor will always include a hugely disproportionate number of
blacks.

Thus in the unlikely event that they learn to accept the realities of
their condition, as we all have to, there will always exist a capacity
for black resentment of more successful ethnic groups and so black
violence. Lies and excuses on their behalf will only succeed in
deepening their frustration and distress.

The racially -determinedl socio-economic hierarchies that naturally
develop in racially mixed societies with all their attendant social
stresses is one of the key arguments against the existence of such
societies.

Into the Canibal's Pot - Ilana Mercer

National Conservatism

David Hamilton

Where's the Birth Certificate?

The Steadfast Trust

The Steadfast Trust is the first and only registered charity which undertakes work specifically for the ethnic English community.

Crimes of theTimes

Memories of Rhodesia

Keeping the Memories Alive Through Film & Book

Black Racism, White Victims

Not available via Amazon UK (naturally)

Seeing Through State Propaganda

By Mister Fox

White Refugees

Supporting Brandon Huntley and other white refugees from Southern Africa

Casuals United Blog

Four Flags

The Indigenous People of Britain

UN DECLARATION

The rights of indigenous peoples

SA World

Ex-patriot South Africans

Christian Europe

Stop Islam

Kriss Donald RIP

Where is the Kriss Donald Memorial Centre?

Thomas Jefferson

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that thesepeople are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the tworaces, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature,habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."--Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:72

More of a conversation about Race

a new film by Craig Bodeker

A Conversation about Race

At YouTube

A Conversation about Race Website

"Fairness" Doctrine = Censorship

Censorship through boredom

International Free Press

Gates of Vienna

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.

Daily Mash

Hunting Knives

Race crime in Britain

A few quotes from history

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." (Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels)

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! (Benjamin Franklin)

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." (Adolf Hitler)

Mourn not the dead that in the cool earth lieBut rather mourn the apathetic throngThe cowed and the meekWho see the world's great anguish and its wrongAnd dare not speak. (Ralph Chaplin 1887-1961)